Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What court rulings address Sharia in American legal systems?
Executive summary
U.S. courts have repeatedly held that American law — not foreign religious codes — controls in U.S. courts, but they also enforce private agreements or arbitral awards that incorporate religious rules (including Islamic/Shariah-based contracts) when those agreements comply with U.S. law [1] [2]. High‑profile state "anti‑Sharia" measures (notably Oklahoma’s 2010 amendment) were blocked or struck down on constitutional grounds because they singled out Islam and risked violating the Establishment Clause [3] [4].
1. Courtroom reality: religious law as private contract, not parallel legal system
American courts routinely enforce private agreements that reference religious rules — for example arbitration awards or wills drafted according to religious precepts — so long as the underlying contract or award meets ordinary U.S. standards (e.g., consent, unconscionability, public‑policy limits). Reporting and scholarship note that courts treating Sharia‑based arbitration or contractual terms is analogous to how courts have long handled Catholic, Jewish and other religious tribunals [1] [2].
2. Landmark pushback: Oklahoma amendment and constitutional review
The Oklahoma 2010 ballot amendment explicitly banning “Sharia” from state courts drew immediate litigation and was enjoined; federal appellate review concluded that singling out Islam risked violating the Establishment Clause and therefore could not stand as written [3] [4]. This ruling is often cited as a concrete example where a state prohibition on consideration of Sharia was prevented by constitutional review [4].
3. The New Jersey episode often cited by critics and corrected on appeal
A 2009 New Jersey family‑court ruling that appeared to defer to “Sharia” in a domestic abuse context became a focal point for alarm, but the New Jersey Appellate Division reversed, emphasizing that court decisions must be grounded in American law and that deferment to foreign religious rules in a way that undermines U.S. rights is improper [1] [5] [6]. Legal commentators stress the reversal to show that isolated trial‑court missteps have not produced a systemic practice of courts applying Sharia as superior law [5].
4. Federal Arbitration Act and religious tribunals: space for faith‑based dispute resolution
The Federal Arbitration Act [7] and ordinary contract/enforcement doctrines allow private parties to resolve disputes through religious tribunals or arbitration; U.S. courts will generally enforce those decisions if they meet legal standards [3] [2]. Advocates for Muslim communities point to this as evidence that Sharia influences appear within the narrow context of consensual arbitration or personal contracts, not as a replacement for public law [2].
5. Competing perspectives: alarm vs. legal scholars and civil‑liberties groups
Groups like the Center for Security Policy warn of an “incursion” of Sharia into U.S. courts and cite dozens of cases they interpret as problematic [8]. In contrast, civil‑liberties organizations, the American Bar Association, and many legal scholars argue that anti‑Sharia legislation is unnecessary, constitutionally suspect, and risks harming other faith communities that rely on religious arbitration [3] [4] [6]. Journalistic and academic accounts generally conclude that fears of Sharia supplanting U.S. law are exaggerated [9] [2].
6. How courts actually decide: public policy and constitutional limits
Multiple sources emphasize the controlling principle: U.S. courts will not apply foreign or religious rules that conflict with public policy or constitutional guarantees (e.g., gender equality, Due Process). Where courts have referenced Sharia, they have done so within established American legal frameworks and have sometimes corrected trial‑level errors on appeal [10] [11] [12].
7. Legislative reactions and unintended consequences
State legislatures adopted a wave of “foreign‑law” or anti‑Sharia bills after high‑profile controversies; some templates explicitly targeted Sharia, while others used broader language to avoid constitutional problems. Civil‑liberties and legal groups warned these measures could create legal uncertainty and unintentionally restrict enforcement of other religious arbitration and customary practices [13] [9] [6].
8. Takeaway and reporting limits
Available sources indicate that courts sometimes enforce religiously informed private contracts or arbitration awards, but they do not support the claim that Sharia operates as a parallel legal system in U.S. courts; constitutional review has blocked explicit anti‑Sharia bans when they single out Islam [1] [2] [4]. Sources differ sharply on the scale of the problem: security‑oriented groups highlight dozens of cases as evidence of incursion [8], while legal scholars and civil‑liberties organizations call the threat overstated and caution against discriminatory legislation [9] [6]. Available sources do not mention a definitive list of every court ruling nationwide that has referenced Sharia, and further case‑by‑case research would be needed to catalog lower‑court decisions (not found in current reporting).